Bush and My Pet Goat

[Brasil]

In part, this question pertains to the "questionable" events of 9/11, when Bush apparently decided to stay in a pre-school classroom and read a children's book to the students there, instead of zipping out on his plane and...I don't know...support the country?

After reading about Michael Moore using an enlarged copy (READ: gigantic) of My Pet Goat at his little entertainment concert at the Tweeter Center, I can't help but ask, "What's the big deal about it?"

I mean, what is so wrong with simply finishing a story in a preschool classroom, even though your country is under attack? I just can't see how that's still such a huge issue...hell, I can't even see how it was a huge issue back then, really.

Bush stayed for 7 minutes after his aides informed him in the classroom. 7 minutes. That's less than 15. I can't even shower in 7 minutes. How is his staying there and finishing the story a bad thing? How does that color him to be some evil guy, or legitimize criticisms of him? I'm not defending him, but I'm just trying to see why people got their panties so much in a twist.

And, perhaps to open this up to a wider range of topics, why is Bush villified, anyway (for that matter, why is Kerry villified)? Sure, he's done some questionable things (i.e., War on Terror), but I can't think of any President who hasn't done something bad...maybe Jimmy Carter, but that's all I can think of in the past 40 years.

I dislike Bush, sure, and I also dislike Kerry. I'm not a fan of either party, to be honest, but I just can't see how this entire thing (Bush-bashing, Kerry-bashing, Michael Moore) is any different than schoolyard recess bullies getting upset over Dodgeball.

Can someone please explain this to me? Am I missing something here, some huge and groundbreaking piece of news that will shatter everything I know, or is the American political system really nothing more than a huge game of Dodgeball gone wrong?

[Dagger]

I can shower in under seven minutes. Believe me, it takes a lot of skill. ;)

I'm more annoyed about Dan Rather making a complete idiot out of himself and the Swift Boat mud-slingers (two separate issues, but equally aggravating) than what Michael Moore did or said however many months ago. If he wants to influence the outcome of the election, he's obviously failing--using My Pet Goat for cheap laughs won't sway anyone, so it's not really worth discussing anymore. As far as I can tell, the seven-minute delay has never been a "huge issue"; it's just something Democrats like to point to when they're feeling resentful.

~Dagger~

[James]

[color=#707875]The truth is, no matter what Bush did, he would have been criticized. If he'd rushed out in a hurry, people would have claimed that he'd scared the kids. By waiting just seven minutes, people now claim he was taking too long and wasn't taking it seriously. In all honesty, the man is just not going to win. lol

Even if you find someone's policies questionable, I think it's fair to say that the mud-slinging in American politics is going way too far at the moment. Bush is basically attacked like I've never seen before -- and he's largely attacked by people who simply don't (and don't want to) understand what his policies are and how they work. The most ignorant are the most vocal, in my view.

Of course, every politician has things about their policies that some people don't like. You can't please everyone. But the mud-slinging that is going on is really insane, in my view. Michael Moore and others are only fuelling a bad habit. Ironically, they aren't contributing to democracy at all.[/color]

[Dagger]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Even if you find someone's policies questionable, I think it's fair to say that the mud-slinging in American politics is going way too far at the moment. Bush is basically attacked like I've never seen before -- and he's largely attacked by people who simply don't (and don't want to) understand what his policies are and how they work.[/color][/quote]

He's hardly the only one who's suffering from this. I'm not a Kerry fan, but I think it's absolutely despicable that people are maligning his war record. Moreover, polls show that the Swift Boat ads have actually been quite effective--which I find astonishing, considering that they're baseless as well as completely tasteless.

Yeah, I know liberals like to jump all over Bush. However, his people have done more than their share of mud-slinging: just look at what happened to John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries. The Bush team pulled some incredibly dirty tricks back then, and remembering that makes it impossible for me to feel particularly sympathetic when they're on the receiving end.

~Dagger~

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]He's hardly the only one who's suffering from this. I'm not a Kerry fan, but I think it's absolutely despicable that people are maligning his war record. Moreover, polls show that the Swift Boat ads have actually been quite effective--which I find astonishing, considering that they're baseless as well as completely tasteless.

Yeah, I know liberals like to jump all over Bush. However, his people have done more than their share of mud-slinging: just look what happened to John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries. The Bush team pulled some incredibly dirty tricks back then, and remembering that makes it impossible for me to feel particularly sympathetic when they're on the receiving end.

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]
And that's what I'm saying, Dagger--asking, rather.

How are partisan politics helping America? We constantly see attacks from both sides, we see attacks from Hollywood...they're coming from everywhere. Is that supposed to give us faith in our government leaders? lol

I mean, when we're hearing of the Candidates themselves both ripping the other to shreds, in front of their respective rallies filled with their respective party supporters, what are we supposed to believe? By that I mean, when both candidates are putting their worst faces forward by trying to sling mud into their opponents' faces, is that going to inspire confidence in the electoral system?

I'm being naive, I'm sure, but I think we seriously need a major overhaul of the system itself, heh...get a fresh start, forget about partisan politics...hell, maybe SNL had something there back in 2000, when they had The Odd Couple skit starring both George Dubya and Al Gore sharing the Presidency and the White House.

[Guest Midnight Rush]

Without a partisan political system, the country would fall apart. It is immature and disgusting on both sides, I admit, but its balancing....

What does partisan politics do for the USA?

1. Prevents dictatorships
2. Keeps politics in reality (I'll explain what I mean with that in a minute)


1 is self evident, now I'll try to explain what I mean in 2:

The real world is a nasty, hard hitting, unsympathetic place. Washington DC is no different. Bush bashing Kerry and Kerry bashing Bush makes it nasty, just like its gonna be nasty for whoever wins.

While Koizumi and Blair kow-tow to the US (and rightfully so ^_>) constantly, other leaders don't. NO matter who wins, the Pres has one hell of a hard job, and we as Americans need the most heartless, nastiest S.O.B in the country to pull us through.

Think about this: Why is Ray Lewis (Ravens MLB) a better player than Zach Thomas (Miami MLB)? THey both play at extremely polished and amazing levels, but Lewis is intense, nasty and mean. Thats why he is better.

The mud slinging tests the poise and composure of the candidates. If Bush can't survive MoveOn.org's ad attack, can he beat the terrorists? Nope. If Kerry can't survive the SwiftBoat Vet's for Truth, can he beat the terrorists? Nope. They put each other in a crucible, and the winner is the man that is stronger, nastier, and more intelligent (Generally speaking...).

The Partisan system isn't great..hell it isn't even good. But other alternitives are the products of either madness or naivete. The world ain't pretty: Its not pretty on Wallstreet, its not pretty in the capit(a)(o)l, its not pretty in small businesses or in bluecollar homes. Its not pretty anywhere.

Its life.

EDIT: Dagger, as far as faith in government leaders, I have this quote from the book Whirlwind:

"My son, put no faith in the promises of kings and of princes. If they or even your great general has to choose between your life and something of more value to them, what will they choose? They would sell you, your family, and your heritage for a pinch of salt to put in a dish of rice they won't even bother to taste."

Cynical, yes. Realistic, yes.

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]The truth is, no matter what Bush did, he would have been criticized. If he'd rushed out in a hurry, people would have claimed that he'd scared the kids. By waiting just seven minutes, people now claim he was taking too long and wasn't taking it seriously. In all honesty, the man is just not going to win. lol
[/color][/QUOTE]
Interesting.

I have always advocated Bush staying on to read the rest of the story before going to deal with 9/11, because I thought he might scare the kids if he just up and left. It seemed to me, as events were unfolding, to be the most reasonable plan of action.

The finishing of the story by Bush was brought up in Fahrenheit 9/11, and was one of the things I much disliked about the movie. It seems that alot of the critics of this move don't really see [i]why[/i], the only see a chance to criticise.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Midnight Rush']we as Americans need the most heartless, nastiest S.O.B in the country to pull us through.[/quote]You do realize that Richard Nixon nearly doomed our country? His methods were quite possibly the most unsound executions I've ever read about. No country should have a president like Nixon, who is undeniably one of the nastiest and most heartless S.O.Bs in American history. If not for some serious investigation by third-party reporters, Nixon could have inflicted far more damage than he did. Had Nixon stayed in power, I strongly believe that Watergate and his mis-management of Vietnam would have been the tip of the iceberg.

In order for America to survive, I think a cold-hearted and ruthless bastard is the [i]last[/i] thing we need, quite honestly. We don't need a Terminator; we need Merkin Muffley (from Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove).

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

Well I think the whole sitting in the Pre-school reading a children's book was a bit of a double edged sword as far as Bush or any other politician could be concerned. To be honest I think he actually made the right decision in staying where he was to sort out his thoughts. The point that he may have scared the children is a little silly in my opinion, he could have quite easily just excused himself in about two minutes before jumping on his plane and going back to D.C.

I mean put yourself in his position if you can, you are the leader of the world?s most powerful country, and your country has just been attacked for the first time since Pearl Harbour. Now maybe I'm reading too deeply into this, but I think reading a children?s book might have helped give him a small bit of perspective on the gravity his situation. Now that is just my opinion he may have had a completely different reason for staying put.

On the whole "Mud-Slinging" issue of American politics I think it's rather sad, I was just having a conversation with my father yesterday about how a politician how employs Spin-doctors can never be taken seriously. I mean this in a bad way, a man who hires another man to take information and change it is effectively hiring another man to write lies for him. Take this example we discussed in Religion earlier this week.

"[B]Eats, shoots and leaves[/B]" - This can be used to describe the actions of a man who robbed a restaurant and killed someone to make the manager hand over the money.

"[b]Eats shoots and leaves[/b]" - This describes the eating habits of a panda.

Now the only difference there was a comma but it changed the statement graphically. It's the same way in modern politics, it's not about appearing to be the Good Guy, it's about making the other guy look like the Bad Guy.[/SIZE]

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]If on nothing else, I agree with Bush's decision to remain in the classroom for the next seven minutes, for the same reason that has been stated over and over again.

I think it is important, using Michael Moore's documentary as an example, that the public be exposed to the [i]other[/i] extreme view, however.
The Democrats are finally starting to get a word in, media-wise, when it comes to CNN, a station who's views are reflected in most of the American opinions I've read/heard on political issues.
During broadcasted debates, the Republican-based side seemed to do nothing but bellow out forced laughs at anything the Democrats pointed out, in an attempt to make them look silly. The "my oponent is smelly" tactic reminds me ever so much of the Bloc, only more people listen to the Republicans than they do Duceppe.
The American media is very much on Bush's side, even though alot of people seem to think the opposite.

Elections have a tendency to start to revolve around the leader of a party, which really isn't all that important, when you have their platform to worry about. The American election has become too personal, as far as I'm concearned.
What a person did or did not do thirty years ago shouldn't override what they plan to do to the most powerful country in the world next.

It's only a good thing for people to see their potential leader from another point of view. It balances things out; I'd watch Bowling for Columbine's film-opposite if I could find it, just to see what the conservatives had to say about the whole deal.

And just out of curiosity, why does "liberal" seem to be such a negative connotation when it comes to US politics? "He's a liberal!!!"

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I find it quite weird.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[John]

[size=2]There's no way to describe how happy I am that I'm too young to have an obligation to vote, lol. If everything that's been said recently was true, both of the candidates are insanely evil, anti-American ******** who bumble through their political careers thinking only of how to further screw up the nation.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Have fun at the booths![/size]

[Godelsensei]

[QUOTE=Who?][size=2]There's no way to describe how happy I am that I'm too young to have an obligation to vote, lol. If everything that's been said recently was true, both of the candidates are insanely evil, anti-American ******** who bumble through their political careers thinking only of how to further screw up the nation.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Which is exactly what they want people to think of their respective oponents. 'Sworking, apparently.[/FONT]
[/COLOR]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei]
The American media is very much on Bush's side, even though alot of people seem to think the opposite.
[/QUOTE]

O__O

I live in America, and I can tell you, it's very much the opposite. CNN doesn't like Bush, CBS doesn't like Bush, NBC doesn't like Bush, The Washington Post doesn't like Bush, the New York Times doesn't like Bush, TIME doesn't like Bush, Newsweek doesn't like Bush, 99.999999% of celebrities don't like Bush...

Would you like examples?

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]I'd love some examples.

As long as you agree to go read about the same sort of issues as told by CBC and BBC.

Just to put things into perspective for both of us. It's not like anybody's losing out that way, after all.

After all, you do live in America. ^_~[/FONT][/COLOR]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Okay, it's early, and this is just off the top of my head...

National Public Radio, which is funded (unfortunatly) by US tax dollars, plays an instrumental version of "It's the End of the World as We Know It" after announcing that President Bush won the election.

Dan Rather, in his coverage of election night 2000, uses specific terminology to describe which states were won by which candidate: "Vermont went to Gore." "Alabama fell to Bush".

CBS, NBC and NPR call President Bush "Mister Bush" in the majority of their reporting, a minor slight; once a person becomes President, their title is "President ___" as long as they're in office, and they're "Mr. President" for life.

CBS, NBC, etc., spend two weeks reporting that the Bush twins used fake ID's to get into bars. Number of unflattering stories regarding Chelsea Clinton: 0.

Comendey Central premieres a program called "That's My Bush", whose portrayal of the President is...well, you can imagine.

CBS admits their documents were falsified, (most recently), but don't apologize to the President for printing a false story about him.

Micheal Moore's anti-Bush movie recieved publicity and air-time prior to release three times as his disagreements with Disney were reported as news. Appearing in the news= Free advertising.

A New York Times (I believe) reporter activly becomes a paid adviser for the John Kerry campaign, but doesn't take a hiatis from his job and still reports "the news".

Bush's national guard duty is brought up three times, despite the lack of new information.

The prison scandles were exposed three months after they actually happened, in response to rising Bush poll-numbers.

The protests of the RNC get more air-time than the actual concvention, which gets far less air-time than the DNC.

I've got to go now....[/color][/size][/font]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Siren'] I can't even shower in 7 minutes. [/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Since Friday evening I can't even do number one in seven minutes, but that's besides the point.

So he stayed and finished reading a book to some pre-school children instead of rushing out of there like his rear end was on fire and scaring a bunch of kids. Everyone knows I don't care much for Bush (those who don't should read signatures more often) But I think that finishing up a book in seven minutes hardly made a difference.

Actually I think if the FBI had had their act together prior to 9/11/01 there wouldn't have been this problem with Bush reading a story to small children in the first place. If anyone should be villified for something on 9/11 it should be them.

Now what I want to know is why are so many people making a big deal about John Kerry protesting the war in Vietnam after he came back from fighting in it? In my opinion someone who went over and risked his or her life to fight in a war and came back has more right to protest it than someone who went to college to avoid the draft and still wants to protest a war. [/color]

[Guest Midnight Rush]

[QUOTE=Siren]You do realize that Richard Nixon nearly doomed our country? His methods were quite possibly the most unsound executions I've ever read about. No country should have a president like Nixon, who is undeniably one of the nastiest and most heartless S.O.Bs in American history. If not for some serious investigation by third-party reporters, Nixon could have inflicted far more damage than he did. Had Nixon stayed in power, I strongly believe that Watergate and his mis-management of Vietnam would have been the tip of the iceberg.

In order for America to survive, I think a cold-hearted and ruthless bastard is the [i]last[/i] thing we need, quite honestly. We don't need a Terminator; we need Merkin Muffley (from Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove).[/QUOTE]

Johnson mismanaged Vietnam. Nixon was given an ace high in a game in which everyone else had full houses. He didn't do that bad of a job considering he inherited someone else's war.

Please, tell me how Nixon nearly "doomed" our country. In reading history I'm at a loss to find how. Granted he sucked at being president, but he wasn't half as bad as you paint him.

I haven't read that book, but I'll bet Muffley is a soft, sensitive, intellectual man. Exactly what you simply [i]cannot[/i] have in a leader. We need someone who will fight, and if needed, forceably apply consequences for the sake of American interest.

Think about it:

If you elect a rabbit to represent your country in the realms of business, war, and politics, you will get the same respect as a rabbit gets: NONE.

On the other hand, if you elect a huge, vicious dog you will get its respect: AMAZINGLY HIGH.

It astounds me that anyone could even consider a 'rabbit' like John Kerry for president, but I guess thats "democracy" (I. E. The stupidity of the masses). GWB isn't quite the vicious dog I'd like him to be, but he's damn close.

We don't need a terminator. We don't need a 'girly-man'.

We need a Tai-Pan, a real man. Someone to stand up to the other nations of the world and say "**** you. The USA comes first."

That ruthless, heartless, cold as ice son of a ***** is the only one that can stand between soft hearted pathetic intellectuals and the real world. For the sake of idealistic people everywhere, elect a merciless man. He will protect the bubble y'all live in, keeping you from having to deal with reality.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Midnight Rush]Johnson mismanaged Vietnam. Nixon was given an ace high in a game in which everyone else had full houses. He didn't do that bad of a job considering he inherited someone else's war.

Please, tell me how Nixon nearly "doomed" our country. In reading history I'm at a loss to find how. Granted he sucked at being president, but he wasn't half as bad as you paint him.[/quote]
Did you watch the PBS documentary on him a few months ago? I think that's plenty enough to say that he was running our country into the ground. Or, if you'd like, The Final Days is a pretty insightful look at Nixon.

[QUOTE]I haven't read that book, but I'll bet Muffley is a soft, sensitive, intellectual man. Exactly what you simply [i]cannot[/i] have in a leader. We need someone who will fight, and if needed, forceably apply consequences for the sake of American interest.[/QUOTE]
When you watch Dr. Strangelove, then come back and talk about Muffley. And had you actually seen Dr. Strangelove, you will see that Muffley [i]is[/i] indeed "someone who will fight, and if needed, forceably apply consequences for the sake of American interest." He wants to avoid nuclear holocaust at all costs, including shooting Major Kong's bomber out of the air.

But he would even like to avoid that, preferring that no deaths happen. How is that ignoble? How does that somehow make him less of a man than say...Conan the Barbarian?

[QUOTE]Think about it:

If you elect a rabbit to represent your country in the realms of business, war, and politics, you will get the same respect as a rabbit gets: NONE.

On the other hand, if you elect a huge, vicious dog you will get its respect: AMAZINGLY HIGH.[/QUOTE]
Frankly, I think your point is absolutely ridiculous here, because I'd much prefer someone who uses a bit of common sense (the rabbit) instead of some vicious killer, like you're suggesting needs to be in office.

By the way, do you honestly believe that you will get [i]true[/i] respect from that "huge, vicious dog" if you elect it? You won't, lol.

[quote]It astounds me that anyone could even consider a 'rabbit' like John Kerry for president, but I guess thats "democracy" (I. E. The stupidity of the masses). GWB isn't quite the vicious dog I'd like him to be, but he's damn close.

We don't need a terminator. We don't need a 'girly-man'.

We need a Tai-Pan, a real man. Someone to stand up to the other nations of the world and say "**** you. The USA comes first."

That ruthless, heartless, cold as ice son of a ***** is the only one that can stand between soft hearted pathetic intellectuals and the real world. For the sake of idealistic people everywhere, elect a merciless man. He will protect the bubble y'all live in, keeping you from having to deal with reality.[/QUOTE]
Do you know what you want? You want a war-monger. That's all, and that's not what our country needs.

To try to steer this back on-topic, I find it so incredibly hard to believe that people like yourself are so convinced that we need force and nothing more, that one side is so horrible and your party is just so spectacular. That's not how it is. Both parties are pretty ridiculous.

I was at a local college function last night, just a couple of people chatting about various issues. Call it a focus group, I suppose. We had a few staunch Republicans and a few staunch Democrats in there. I was one of two neutrals.

Everyone was nice and all, but they were very, very rooted in their particular parties, and were fairly non-receptive to other ideas, although they were being very respectful to the others there and to the discussion itself.

But, and this is an important but, so pay attention, Christine, a Republican, who I'd been debating with here and there, [i]fully agreed[/i] with me when I said how the American political system really is a huge pie-fight (again, check out Dr. Strangelove), where everyone is so concerned with retaliating that they're blinding themselves even further. Everyone agreed with me.

Midnight Rush, I think it would serve you well to actually step-back from the entire political process and start looking at it objectively, because an objective look at things is really the only way to go, [i]not[/i] retaliating whenever someone looks at us funny.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Midnight Rush]
If you elect a rabbit to represent your country in the realms of business, war, and politics, you will get the same respect as a rabbit gets: NONE.

On the other hand, if you elect a huge, vicious dog you will get its respect: AMAZINGLY HIGH.

It astounds me that anyone could even consider a 'rabbit' like John Kerry for president, but I guess thats "democracy" (I. E. The stupidity of the masses). GWB isn't quite the vicious dog I'd like him to be, but he's damn close.

We don't need a terminator. We don't need a 'girly-man'.

We need a Tai-Pan, a real man. Someone to stand up to the other nations of the world and say "**** you. The USA comes first."

That ruthless, heartless, cold as ice son of a ***** is the only one that can stand between soft hearted pathetic intellectuals and the real world. For the sake of idealistic people everywhere, elect a merciless man. He will protect the bubble y'all live in, keeping you from having to deal with reality.[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Actually in the next election I was thinking of voting for a pitbull mix who keeps getting punked by a beagle. How does that strike you?

The problem is you're not looking at middle ground, you're going for either the drunk jerk at the bar who wants to smash empty beer cans against his forehead and challenge everyone to an arm wrestling match or the geeky kid in high school who gets shoved into his locker every day.

We as Americans don't need either of those. We need a person with a head which contains a working brain on their shoulders. That's not what we got as Americans..as voters the past election. What we got is an angry block head who wanted to go to war with Iraq and used Afghanistan as an excuse along with a bunch of lies which have cause over 1,000 American casualties in the past year and a half . Most of them after the 'ceasefire' in May 2003. Yes, Clinton Lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky, but his lie didn't cause people to lose their lives.

Bush isn't exactly a viscious dog to me either. He reminds me more of a toy poodle who was given too much caffiene and charge of the house if you really want to know the truth. His cabinet is more of the aggressive dog breed type although Rumsfeld could be more beagle than bull dog. In other words, this administration is in serious need of muzzles, leashes and a new kennle. Preferably one away from the White HOuse.

America doesn't need a drunk, or an animal as president, We also don't need one who can't recognize when he's (or she's ) made a mistake. Bush hasn't acknowledged that he's made a mistake in invading both Iraq and Afghanistan in the space fo a year and for that I don't think he should be allowed to be president again. I can't call it re-elected because he was never elected by the people anyway.

I'd add more, but since my husband is off protecting American oil interests in Iraq, I have to put my daughter to bed, then go to bed myself. Good Night![/color]

[Guest Garelock]

You know, I'm going to shut up a few people with the definition of a leader.

A leader is someone who takes the credit when things go good and the BLAME when things go bad. That's what the president is, a leader, nothing more, nothing less. When things go bad in America, everyone looks to Bush because he's the leader, rather it's his fault or not, he's STILL who is blamed as it should be. If he didn't want that kind of responsibility than he shouldn't have ran for office. When a wolf pack goes into a bad area and don't have enough animals to hunt and eat you don't blame the whole pack. Who do you blame then? THE LEADER OF THE PACK! Everyone looks at Bush because he's the leader of the pack, if no one likes that then they don't view him as a leader.

For all stereotypical purposes, something me as a black person should know well about, anything Bush does reflects America. So everything America does likewise reflects Bush, that's how it works, it's a balancing equation that will be in place as long as we have the electorial process system in America.

I'll give a better example. Take a lion pride. The reason why the alpha male gets the first choice in food, gets protection, gets to have all the priviledges of being first in line is because that male is the leader. The leader is..just that...the leader. Bush is more like the lion from The Wizard of Oz now; he's got no courage and is pretty much pathetic. He doesn't like to get criticized...REALITY CHECK! You're the freakin' president of the United States of America, the single country in the world who does more gossiping and criticizing of its leaders than any other country PERIOD. The hell did you expect George?!

That's why I think George Bush is nothing less of an idiot because he doesn't expect to get criticized yet he's the commander in chief. Instead of fixing the problems this country has he'd rather ignore them and just make excuses like, "Well, that didn't happen under my administration." Does it matters WHOSE administration it happened under? DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT JACKASS! GEEZ! I don't like this guy at all now! I mean, if you come home to discover that someone wasted milk on the floor, are you REALLY gonna keep saying "Well, I didn't do it so I won't clean it up"? Are you really gonna keep saying that for 4 damn years straight while the milk is still on the floor?! NO! You clean it up, you fix it, you correct what you think isn't correct, you do what you think is right and you DO NOT sit around and place the blame on everyone else. You're the damn leader, START LEADING!

Vote for someone who's merciless? Someone who'll kill people without hesitation? Hmm...well, I can't argue with that too much as it is the American way. We've bombed just about the whole map so far, there isn't too many countries we HAVEN'T bombed yet. Why stop now? We're the most hated country in the world, so why change our reputation now?

We don't need a girly man, nor do we need a bunny. Then again, it depends on the bunny. Even Bugs Bunny was dominant in the cartoon world, mind you. Rabbits and bunnies alike are in such high abundance and so much so that I'd say they are more than respected, thank you very much. We don't need a carnivore in office either because they'd do what a carnivore would do; devour things and attack things only to have the prey's defense come into play. America is like a lion and lets say we decide to attack Japan which would be an elephant; predator, prey. Japan woud crush America with its military weight and size, that's why we don't need Bush in office. He's going to attack every damn country on the map and we're going to eventually lose. And YES, we WOULD lose to Japan. Think about it, what other country has as much advanced technology as Japan? They probably got Gundams for weapons about now...I could see it now on the American radars. "It's a mobile suit...IT'S A GUNDAM! FIRE THE BUNKER BUSTERS!"


Signed,

A black dude who's extremely pissed and will never calm down for a long while...